Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/20020 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Regular Meeting - 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Commissioners Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Gifford, Selich and Tucker - Commissioner Gifford was excused STAFF PRESENT. Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Rich Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager James Campbell, Senior Planner Ginger Varin, Planning Commission Secretary Minutes: Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to approve the minutes of September 19, 2002 as amended. Ayes: Toerge, McDaniel, Noes: None Excused: Gifford Abstain: Agajanian Public Comments: Postina of the Agenda: Kiser, Selich, Tucker The Planning Commission agenda was posted on Friday, September 27, 2002. Minutes Approved None Posting of Agenda City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 SUBJECT: (Continued from 09 /19/2002) 300 Larkspur Avenue Variance to exceed the allowable 1,188 square -foot floor area limit by 593 square feet in order to construct a single- family residence located In Corona del Mar. Included is a Modification to allow a 7 -foot encroachment into the 10 -foot rear yard (roof eaves an additional 18 inches). Chairperson Kiser noted that this item had been heard at the meeting of September 19th and continued for an additional notice period. Mr. Campbell noted a fax that had been transmitted in opposition of the project. He then noted edits for the Resolution; the date of this hearing; Section 3a the first sentence would read, 'The lot size is atypical of other lots in the area and is not located on an alley. The strict application of the setback standards would reduce the buildable area to a very small size and result in the size of the structure that is not typical of the neighborhood.' Section b, 'the granting of the variance to exceed the maximum floor area by 593 square feet, the applicant would not be able to construct a dwelling that is similar in design and lot coverage to other surrounding properties.' Section c, the last part of the sentence after Area —% strike 'in both size and bulk.' The last change is to Section d, the last sentence strike the word 'size'. Public comment was opened. Andrew Goetz project architect representing the applicants noted that they understand and agree to the findings and conditions contained within the Resolution. Chairperson ICser noted that In condition 11, the plans should be revised to show that a garage shall be. included and to add, 'across both parking spaces'. The applicant's representative agreed. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to adopt Resolution 1573 approving the requested Variance No. 2002 -006 and Modification No. 2002 -083 (PA2002 -151) with conditions as modified. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: None Excused: Gifford INDEX PA2002 -151 • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Newport Beach LDS Temple ( (Continued from 09/05/2002) 2300 Bonita Canyon Drive A Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of a place of religious worship on an 8.6 acre site within the Bonita Canyon Planned Community. The Temple is planned as a 17,575 square foot building in the center of the property, surrounded by 5.5 acres of gardens, walkways, and water treatments in the western portion of the project site and parking in the eastern and northeastern perimeters of the site. The request also Includes consideration of a 124 -foot high steeple that would exceed the maximum allowable height of 50 feet. Commissioner Toerge noted the following: 1 had attended the September 5'^ Planning Commission meeting. • 1 read the minutes of that meeting and the draft Environmental Impact Report and the response to comments as well as all of the correspondence that had been received at the City. I had visited the site numerous times and studied the crane when it was on site. • I have had conversations with both the proponents and opponents of the • project. Chairperson Kiser stated he wanted to hear from staff on the new information received within the last weeks having to do with the actual height as it has been discovered of the Stake Center steeple next door to the proposed project. Mr. Campbell noted: • Staff has prepared a short supplemental report. • A letter was received from Mr. Alan Murray that questioned the Stake Center steeple height. • A City survey crew was dispatched and the height of 68 feet was verified. The original 86 -foot figure had been taken from the approved set of drawings that originated from the City of Irvine where the project had been approved. There was no evidence of a field correction or change to the drawings in those records. • Staff had no indication that the Stake Center steeple had not been built according to those plans. • Given this new information, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was re- evaluated to see if any ramifications compromised the findings. • Since the EIR was based upon the photo simulations with the crane and was not based upon any comparison analysis with the Stake Center steeple we do not feel the EIR has been compromised and feel that it can be certified this evening. Responses to Mr. Murray's letter and other comment letters that had been received in relation to the extension of the EIR comment period have • been prepared and are available for the public. INDEX Item 2 PA2001 -208 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 We ask that the Planning Commission Include those responses comments within the record. INDEX • At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney, noted that an analysis had been done and the conclusion was that the EIR did not need to be recirculated. The new information does not raise any new substantial environmental Impacts. Mr. Campbell added that the environmental consultant has prepared an Errata indicating that the references to the 86 feet be amended to say 68 feet, which appears twice in the document. That would become part of the record through the Commission's action in the certification of the EIR. Commissioner Tucker noted the CEGA Guidelines 15088.5 (a) 1 through 4. 'Significant new information' requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that: • A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. Mr. Campbell believes there is no significant impact shown by the tower height because the analysis was based on the 124 feet and not based upon the 86 feet. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a • level of insignificance. Mr. Campbell believes that there is no significant impact to reduce. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. Mr. Campbell noted that circumstance is not here. • The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Mr. Campbell noted that is not the case. Mr. Campbell, at Commission inquiry, noted that there are two actions for the Planning Commission to take tonight. The resolution would accomplish both actions. They can be separated with the drafting of a separate resolution. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Kiser asked for Mr. Murray to approach the podium to speak. Allen K. Murray, 2330 Port Lerwick Place noted the following: • Read in the Draft EIR and the staff report dated 09/05/2002 that the Stake Center steeple was 86 feet tall. The steeple height for the new tower was based on being higher than the 86 feet of the Stake Center steeple. He measured and verified the height of 67.28 feet for the Stake Center steeple. Some of the homeowners hired a surveyor who then verified that the Stake • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Center steeple height was 67.08 feet. • He went to the Planning Department and pulled the plans and they state 86 feet for the tower height. • He confirmed with the City of Irvine that the height as built was shorter than the 86 feet and was indeed 68 feet. • The LDS members were giving the number of 71 feet in several of their presentations to residents. He is irritated that the numbers were not verified before the information went out to the public. Since the City's recommendation of 100 feet was made to be higher than the 86 feet Stake Center steeple, it seems that 75 feet would do it. • We in the neighborhood have not had any particular problem with the Stake Center steeple. Commissioner Selich noted that in reading the supplemental staff report, the height of the existing steeple was not the basis for their recommendation. Mr. Campbell answered that the 100 -foot alternative was based on surveying the area through fieldwork. We thought the Stake Center steeple was 86 feet but in looking at the crane to see how much it could be seen within the area, we felt the 100 foot would be as visible and meet the project objectives. . Mr. Murray noted this presents a question of credibility of any information related here. There has been other data presented, and were these other situations evaluated correctly, or checked? Chairperson 4ser thanked the speaker for all his efforts in bringing forth this new information. He then asked for Mr. Martin to approach the podium to speak. Ralph Martin, President of R and M Architects and Planners, representing the applicant noted: • The height did not have any relevance in terms of the proposed temple steeple. • During the Stake Center construction process, there was a significant reduction in the steeple. Because it was an incidental part of the overall picture, we focused on the Temple itself. There was no consideration that would have any bearing except that we wanted to make the proposed Temple steeple higher than, and more dominant than, whatever the Stake Center steeple would appear to be. We knew it was less than 86 feet. • The City of Irvine drawings show 86 feet. If you add to that a 5 -foot lightening rod, that is where 91 feet comes from. About 20 feet of the Stake Center steeple was reduced during the construction process resulting in a height of around 71 feet. There was no research done to verify that number and it became the 71 feet noted on the original application to the City of • Newport Beach. Chairperson Kiser noted that since the 86 ft. height was mentioned in the staff report INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX and discussed, representatives of the applicant were present and had. read the staff report, it seems incumbent on the applicant to inform staff of this error. It was not done and staff or the Commission had heard nothing. Because it was used In my analysis in order to achieve one of the four requirements of the Temple for the new Temple steeple to be visually more prominent than the surrounding buildings and such, it was a criterion. We should have been notified of the correct height. Mr. Martin added: • The application went to the City on 10/23/2001 and had 13 components. • Environmental and peripheral issues states that the Stake Center steeple was 71 feet. • Because we were focusing on the Temple steeple, we didn't give any more credence to mat. • We received an email from City staff stating that the finished floor elevation was Y and the drawings In their possession show 86 feet. • There was a meeting after that and that matter was discussed and the observation was made that the 86 feet was incorrect and that the 71 feet was likely the height of the Stake Center steeple. Commissioner Tucker noted that no matter what the Commission does, mere Is a taint that is hanging over the proceedings. A lot of people believe that the whole justification for the more prominent building was to try and have a differential between the two buildings. This is troubling to me. • Chairperson Kiser asked Mr. Joe Bentley if he would approach the podium to speak. Chairperson Kiser then read a portion of an email that Mr. Bentley sent to the Planning Department staff member, Jim Campbell, on October 1, 2002: "Assuming that everything he says is true, it appears that the plans you inspected in files received by the City of Irvine earlier this year showing the 86' height may not have been the final as- built. I had heard that during the course of construction, the Church for its own reasons had reduced the steeple height'. Chairperson Kiser then asked Mr. Bentley to help the Planning Commissioners understand why he did not disclose his knowledge that the Stake Center steeple height was less than the 86- foot height that had been relied upon the Planning Department staff. Mr. Joe Bentley, 61 Montecito noted the following at Commission inquiry: • He shares the concern about the error that was not corrected in the staff report. • He was not directly involved during the course of construction; however, he had been informed that mere had been a reduction in the Stake Center steeple height. • He never saw the plans from the City of Irvine. • Photo simulations were made based upon the crane height and the relation to the Stake Center steeple. When the Church makes its own determination on what it feels is an appropriate relationship between the two buildings, it would take the actual heights without doing the measurements. • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Chairperson Kiser stated that he was very troubled by the fact that Mr. Bentley had not disclosed this Information, and he believed that Mr. Bentley did a disservice to the applicant, the City and the public by concealing the information. Public comment was closed. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell noted that staff stands behind the recommendation that was put forth. in the supplemental staff report, we indicate that if the Temple steeple was to be reduced further beyond staff's recommendation, we cannot say that the project objectives would be met in the same fashion. The City was not put on notice that we were wrong about the height of 86 feet; the applicant had accepted the data that was taken from the building permit plans. They are not as -built plans but are the plans that the City of Irvine approved and then microfilmed and transported to us when the property was annexed by the City. Commissioner Tucker noted his disappointment with the mistaken measurement, and his support of staff's work. The Temple had put forth the concept that the Temple needed to be visible for the faithful and he had asked about staff's recommendation of 100 feet being visible. It was acknowledged by a Temple representative that 100 feet would be visible as well. I am not sure if a lower level . would be visible. There is a divide here that the community and the Temple should bridge. The Planning Commission will have to make the decision now. There will be a steeple; the question is the height. The lighting Issue is also being addressed. I can see an argument being made for the Temple steeple to be 14 feet over the Stake Center steeple, which is what staff thought they were suggesting at the 100 -foot height. I can also see an argument being made for the steeple height being 100'. One of the things as a possible choice for us is to continue this for a couple of weeks, and let the residents and the Temple people figure It out. As for as the Importance of the correct Stake Center height, I think from an environmental impact standpoint, it doesn't really make any difference. Chairperson Kiser noted that he would hear from the applicant again for any changes they may have to bring before the Commission. Commissioner Toerge noted: • The place to start is with a clear understanding of factual baseline information. This particular error may not render the EIR invalid, I believe it impacts the way the public views the project. • All public review, testimony, opinions, etc. have been based upon false and potentially misleading information. • I am not disparaging the draft EIR nor the staff report. It simply has a flaw. The staff report mentions the Stake Center tower height; the Draft EIR mentions it and it is further used in the Response to Comments as partial justification for the report's finding. • I will not be supporting any action on the project tonight except for a continuance so that the draft EIR staff report and related material can be INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX corrected and made available for public review. Chairperson Kser stated he is ready to go forward with this proposed project. Commissioner Agajanian concurred noting that he has worked through the additional information and prefers going ahead. Commissioner McDaniel noted he too has worked through the issues and is ready to vote on this matter tonight. Commissioner Selich noted he Is ready to move ahead adding that, in none of the analysis that has been presented, either on positions presented in the EIR or the criteria that the church representatives gave at the last meeting, was there any direct relationship in terms of any numerical formula between the height they were proposing or how they viewed the height of the Temple steeple in relationship to the Stake Center steeple. It was one of their criteria but it was simply that it be more prominent. Whether It is 86 or 68 feet is really immaterial and not a reason to continue this item. Commissioner Tucker stated he would like to have this matter continued so that the parties can try to figure out whether it is 82 or 100 feet. I will be voting for one of those two heights unless the homeowners and the Temple want something in • between, In which case, they have to come in with some type of consensus. I hate to be the one to decide it for them without giving them an opportunity with this new information. I prefer to see it continued. Chairperson Kiser noted that four Commissioners have given a straw vote to go ahead and asked that the applicant or a representative come forward for testimony. Public comment was opened. Mr. Ralph Martin, R and M Architects and Planners, made a Power Point presentation noting: • Landscape plan on approximately 55% of the site. • Mature trees and landscape will screen the Temple. • Changed direction of the existing double - divided roadway onto the site into the parking area. The temple is now proposed to be, at the top of the angel, 99 feet and 9 inches. • The format of the steeple has been changed as well as the style. The actual footage of the building remains the same at 17,575 square feet about 35 feet high. Simulations were presented with the proposed new steeple height in comparison to the crane. • A comparison of the proposed 2001 and 2002 temple elevations and . dimensions was displayed and discussed. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 We have been listening to people designs reflective of that Input. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Martin answered that the angel height is twelve feet. Mr. Ray Swartz, Konsortum 1, lighting engineers representing the applicant noted: • Due to the reduction in the steeple height the luminance intensity has been reduced. • The fixtures that illuminate the angel figure itself have been pulled in closer to the tower to keep the light shining at a more vertical angle to reduce the halo effect that might be caused by any light that would miss the angel and continue on into the night sky. • The wattages on the fixtures to illuminate the tower have been reduced about 30% with the same number of fixtures as previously proposed. • With the lower steeple height than the previous, we had to pull the fixtures out a little farther to make sure that the angel was adequately illuminated without any shadows coming from the steeple itself. • The fixtures used to illuminate the steeple itself have remained in place although they have changed in wattage. • There Is no lighting within the steeple opening. • Referring to the diagram, he pointed out the location of the lights on the • Temple building. Mr. Weatherford Clayton, Stake President of the Temple in the Newport Beach area, noted: • This new plan has been given the approval of the President of the Church who has that authority. • The lighting will commence at 6 in the morning. • The Temple is now shorter. • There is no holiday lighting on the Temple building itself, and that will never occur. • He then presented a packet of exhibits to the Commission. • At Commission Inquiry, he added that there is no change to the length of the proposed building, only the steeple structure is different. Mr. Campbell noted that after scaling the drawings, there Is a slight difference in length. Mr. Martin concurred and noted that he will adjust those exhibits to be sure that they are the same. Chairperson Kiser then gave an explanation of the procedure of the rest of the hearing on this matter. He stressed that the issues on which the Commission has not received testimony are the issues that should be addressed tonight by the speakers in public comment. The range of possible issues identified in the EIR are aesthetics, • traffic and parking, air quality, hydrology and water quality, and land use. We have received a significant amount of public testimony on the aesthetics issue, have received some amount of testimony concerning traffic and parking, and have City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 received limited or no testimony on the other issues. He then called the names of the speakers who had signed speaker cards at the last meeting, but who did not speak. Steven Brombal, 21 Regents noted: • Staff relied on the 86 -foot figure as represented by the applicant. • The Orange Coast Association of Realtors took a position noting the concerns about the height, hours of operation and effects of the lighting. • He noted that a steeple of 75 feet is reasonable. • There should be a condition on no holiday lighting. • We would like to see no lighting in the morning at all and the lights off at 10:00 p.m. Kathy Cole, 20 Peppertree noted that her home backs up to the existing Stake Center. She expressed her concern about allowing this project, as it does not conform. The lighting from the Stake Center shines in her home both day and night. In the staff report, it states that the parking lights and security lights will remain on. This needs to be adjusted so that some of the parking lights for security will stay on but not all. If the Temple is allowed to have all parking lights on but the Stake Center has none, this is a conformity issue. She then presented pictures showing various views. This is a Planned Community with local community churches and is not a place for regional churches/Temple that want to have grand exposure. I suggest that a 75 -foot steeple level be approved. Martha Carrier, 1918 Port Bristol Circle noted: • This use permit would allow a 150% increase In allowable height for the steeple. • When the property was purchased, there was a 50 -foot height limit. • Expressed her concern about the facts being changed. • The lighting, traffic, hours of operation and the height of the steeple would intrude onto our neighborhood. • The project has not been accurately portrayed to the public. Susan Ordoubadian, 2238 Port Aberdeen Place noted: • The height of the proposed steeple at 100 feet is too high in comparison to other structures in the neighborhood. • The homes and stores are at the most two stories high. • The proposed steeple height is the some as a ten story high building. • The sheer size and lighting scheme will block views and overpower the neighborhood. • The steeple should be built in conformance. Commissioner Tucker noted: • The City does not have a policy of protecting private views. • Every property owner has the right to use his or her own property as allowed by the Zoning Code. • There is a provision in our Codes that doesn't restrict the heights on 10 INDEX • u • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 churches; it requires a use permit be granted. The Church has the right to seek a use permit for any height. If the findings can be made under the Code, it is our decision after hearing your input as to what we think that appropriate height should be. Peter Walters, 30 Palazzo expressed his concern of credibility. He noted that there are temples that have been built with no steeple. Conley Smith, 76 Victoria stated his opposition to the project noting a similar church In the area and Its significant impacts of noise, traffic and holiday lighting on the surrounding neighborhoods. Randy Hunter, 2232 Port Dumess Place stated his objection to the project as it impacts his view and asked that the maximum height of 50 feet be enforced. Walter Charamza, 2224 PorSt Durness Place introduced 3 photos depicting the effect of the temple from his back yard. He noted the impact that the high steeple will have on the surrounding communities as depicted by the crane height. He stated that the helicopters patrol in the area and it would be contrary to the public interest to place a structure within the area where police activity is patrolling in a flying machine. • Lisa Hunter, 2232 Port Dueness Place noted that things have been brought up about the community to reevaluate the project. She is having a hard time trying to figure out what the differences would be now that the height is purported to be different. She suggested that a crane be placed again to allow the community to see how the new structure, as proposed tonight, would impact the community. I ask that you put lights on it so that at night we can see what the impacts will be. The lighting on the statute was supposed to be brighter than that on the building. She Is concerned because the lighting for the angel has to go past the building to get to the angel and that will increase the building lighting. She is concerned about the differences between 100 feet and 86 feet 68 feet and 100 feet. Christian Garner, 15 Boardwalk, noted his concerns about: • The height of the steeple as It is inappropriate for the community. • The Stake Center is not the height that it has been purported to be and is further concerned that the 14 feet that he felt comfortable with before is not such a good compromise if the Stake Center is 68 feet and 100 feet would be much too high. He stated that many other people would be here tonight to speak in opposition if they knew about the corrected Stake Center Steeple height of 68 feet. Russell Niewiarowski, 20102 IQine Drive noted his opposition due to the height and lighting of the steeple. 0 Public comment was closed. 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Public comment was opened. Chairperson Kiser called for Dick Fuller, and asked him to confirm that the applicant has offered to have holiday lighting on the grounds only with a Special Event Permit, and to never have holiday lighting on the Temple building. Mr. Fuller, MIA CRE answered for the applicant and affirmed the statement, and said that the applicant would accept such a condition. Public comment was closed. Chairman Kiser then noted: • The Planning Commission needs to consider all the communications received both at home and at work. • In addition to all of the letters, emails and faxes that all of the Commissioners have reviewed, I have received at my home letters from friends and neighbors who support the proposed structure as presented. I have also received from long term Newport Beach residents for whom I have the utmost respect, letter in vigorous opposition to the steeple and its lighting. Some believe the Temple should not have a steeple at all. Others believe that the steeple should be no higher than the adjacent Stake Center and should blend in with the surrounding development. After all of this input, what we are left with is a matter for our judgment as to what is fair and reasonable which, for this project, Is largely a matter of scale, and amount of lighting. • The Commission is left with a matter of judgment as to what Is fair and reasonable, which is for the matter of scale and amount of lighting. • As a planning matter, it is an approximate 17,575 square foot structure that is proposed for this site, which Is about 5% lot coverage. • The remainder of the site consists of about 5 acres of gardens and terraced parking. • The area is a Planned Community District designated for public and semi- public uses and Is fairly close to neighborhoods. • We could be considering for this site, a public school, after school facility, or a congregate care facility well in excess of a building of 100,000 square feet. This is a large piece of property with a small building on it. • Concerning the error in the staff report and the EIR regarding the 86 versus what we now know to be 68 foot height of the Stake Center steeple, I looked at the Zoning, Municipal Code and PC regulations regarding what is applicable. The three significance criteria identified in the earlier staff report based on California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport General Plan and the Municipal Code provisions provide the project will have a potentially significant impact if it will either: •'r have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista - this is not considered a scenic vista. s Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings'- this does not apply. 4- Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely 12 INDEX • C� J • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX Motion was made by Chairman Kiser to adopt Resolution No. 1574, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 2002 -001 and approving the Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (PA2001 -208) subject to conditions contained in the staff report with these modifications and additions: • Condition 16 - Overall height of the Temple steeple shall read 99 feet and 9 inches with the new design per the plan submitted tonight. 13 affect day or nighttime views in the area - this is what we are grappling with. The crane was at the proper height for the 124 -foot steeple. There may have been comparisons to the Stake Center steeple, but for me that was not something I could not resolve after listening to all the (new information about the Stake Center height) information we have been given over the last several days in order to come to some conclusions. • Because the crane was at the proper height, it also means the relative difference between the Stake Center steeple and the proposed 124 -foot steeple was correct. We have a proposal tonight to lower the steeple to 99 feet and 9 inches. The new information about the Stake Center steeple height we have discussed tonight does not mean that we have to start our analysis from scratch. If one or more individuals affiliated with the applicant knew of the error in the Stake Center steeple height and did not pursue correction of the error, then it is those individuals who will have to bear the burden of their own ethical discord. • The incorrect information does not affect my analysis of the application after I had a chance to go through what the effects of the new information would be. • I used the Stake Center steeple height primarily as a level over which the Temple steeple height needed to be to meet one of the stated objectives of the Temple. We have one or more church steeples in our City that are nearly 100 feet high. The tower at the Newport Harbor High School is also nearly 100 feet high. The steeple at St. Matthews Church across from this project will be 75 feet high from a grade that is eight feet higher than that of the proposed Temple. The revised proposal brings the steeple into parity with similar uses in our City. • This Is not a privacy issue; no one will be up in the steeple looking down into the Bonita Canyon homes. • With the revisions proposed by the applicant, the lighting will not be an irritant after the Temple is built. Ambient light from streetlights, lights in the park adjacent to Bonita Canyon Drive and lights behind the existing Stake Center create and produce enough ambient lighting to make the Temple steeple lighting unobjectionable. • The proposed Temple would be a wonderful addition to our City and would serve an important purpose. Motion was made by Chairman Kiser to adopt Resolution No. 1574, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 2002 -001 and approving the Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (PA2001 -208) subject to conditions contained in the staff report with these modifications and additions: • Condition 16 - Overall height of the Temple steeple shall read 99 feet and 9 inches with the new design per the plan submitted tonight. 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3. 2002 INDEX Condition 20 - Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 A.M. to sunrise and sunset to 10:00 P.M. Condition 21 to be replaced with, 'Holiday lighting will require an application for, and approval of, a Special Event Permit from the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Agojanlan noted his agreement with Chairman Kiser's comments adding: • Need to balance the interest of both the neighborhood and the Temple. • Supports the Temple use in this location. • The neighborhood is In a low -rise architectural area; there are no prominent structures anywhere In this community. • The building, as proposed, cuts Into the low profile nature of the area and that is what he is sensitive to. • A balance can be reached. It is a matter of assuring that the illumination and steeple height are all in conformance so that the Temple can get the prominence they seek and the neighbors can retain the low profile nature of the neighborhood. • He would like to see the steeple less than 100 feet. His consideration is how much taller the steeple rises above the profiles. Having looked at the crane that Identified the height of 124 feet, supports anything under 100 feet. • His preference is to have no pre -dawn lighting of the Temple. • He agrees with the additional condition for the holiday lighting. Commissioner Selich noted: There is no height limit for churches in the City. This was a decision made by a City Council many years ago to regulate the church heights with a use permit. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine the proper height for the church facilities. The factors mentioned in Chairperson Kiser's comments go into the Commission making a decision. Saying that we are granting an exemption or a variance is totally incorrect. 1 don't believe the steeple as proposed will have any negative impact to the surrounding community /properties. • It is a well designed facility. He supports what the Chairman has said. Commissioner McDaniel noted: • In favor of the motion as proposed. • That site could get 189,000 square feet of a five -story building. I think this is a pretty good deal with what is being proposed. The traffic is going to be minimum compared to what could go there. Something needs to be built there, and the applicants have a right to build there. • Lowering the tower makes it more attractive and makes it look shorter. • I don't believe that looking at this further will change anybody's mind. 14 • 0 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 Commissioner Toerae noted: • Looking at the photographs in the EIR, the structure is rather dominant in the view plane. • This new design has only been available for two hours tonight for us to consider. The public deserves the opportunity to see what has been proposed and review what the applicant wants to do now. I am uncomfortable moving forward with a plan that was put before the Commission two hours ago, when in fact the original plan was drawn in May. • In favor of no morning lighting, 6 a.m. seems a reasonable time and turning off the lights at 10:00 p.m. is also reasonable. I would consider lighting the angel only and not the steeple, as it would have a far less impact on the neighborhood if that were the case. • Wants to understand better the program to whether or not the parking lot is lit 24 hours, do they go off? The parking lot lighting at the Stake Center is very bright and I don't know if or what time it goes off. Parking lot lighting is an Important issue. • I am concerned with the parking demand at the Stake Center during construction of the Temple. • The credibility Issue, I don't believe anybody purposely attempted to • mislead anybody. • I am concerned about the 'non negotiable' aspects of the project: The height of the steeple is paramount, yet, there are other temples that do not have steeples. Night lighting is 'non - negotiable' but yet, in the Biblical phrases that refer to its need was really brought about centuries before there was lighting. So, it is hard for me to grasp the absoluteness of those demands. That there is no holiday lighting is very important to the people living there and to me as well. • 1 don't have a problem with the reduced height. However, I am concerned that because of the inadvertent error that the public has not been presented with this new information. • While I think the project has merit and I endorse the structure in that location and the use, I am concerned about the process, especially considering that comments have been made regarding litigation and federal laws that offer churches certain rights that other facilities do not have. My interest is to continue this item to accommodate the public's review of the new information and new temple design. Commissioner Tucker noted: • Our job Is to weigh equities. No one on the Commission lives near the Temple and none of us face the voters. We can and have been objective about this issue. Our decision will be rendered in good faith and after an ample opportunity for the proponents and opponents to be heard. 1 find that the EIR is adequate and that no new information justifying 15 INDEX City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX recirculation has been presented. • The Site Plan merits approval. The intensity of development of the site is considerably less than what City Codes would allow. • The new compromised hours and changes recommended by the plan of the Temple's lighting consultant should address the reasonable concerns of the neighbors. Lighting will not be directed at the residential areas, and while the lighted steeple will be visible to those who look skyward at night, it won't shine in anyone's bedroom in any meaningful fashion. • The steeple height was argued in every possible way. The City Attorney has concluded that the City Planning Commission has the authority to find that with a use permit, the steeple height may exceed 50 feet. The fact is there is a steeple taller than 50 feet next to the proposed site. After reviewing the revised plans for the steeple I believe the steeple height now proposed at just less than 100 feet is justifiable and reasonable. Chairperson Kiser clarified the motion to adopt Resolution No. 1574, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 2002 -001 and approving the Use Permit No. 2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. 2001 -005 (PA2001 -208) subject to conditions that are in the staff report and in addition with these modifications: • Condition 16 - Overall height of the Temple steeple shall read 99 feet and 9 inches with the new design per the plan submitted tonight. • Condition 20 - Lighting of the Temple steeple shall be limited to the hours of 6.00 A.M. to sunrise and sunset to 10.00 P.M. • Condition 21 to be replaced with, 'Holiday lighting will require an application for, and approval of, a Special Event Permit from the City of Newport Beach. Commissioner Tucker asked about the occupancy of 150 people in the facility at one time and asked that a condition be placed on this issue. Additionally: • Findings need to contain the exact language from the Code regarding Use Permits and Site Plan Review. • On Resolution paragraph 56, it refers to highway, is that the correct word? Mr. Edmonston answered that this is a major highway and would be appropriate left in the Resolution. • On Resolution paragraph 5C, add to the sentence, '.....since the Temple will be closed on Sundays.' This will reflect the applicant's agreement the Temple will not be open on Sundays. • Put the reasons into the findings for both a use permit and site plan as applicable for each element of the Code. Condition 1 should be changed to the correct height pursuant to the new exhibits presented this evening. • Condition 7 change the last word in the second sentence to shall. • Condition 18, the second line, change site to building and grounds. • Add a condition about no holiday lighting on the building. Mr. Campbell noted that this revised project now has a steeple that is a little lower and a little wider; staff has prepared an additional finding to be inserted 16 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX regarding the certification of the EIR. 'The revised temple design now includes a steeple at a height of 99 feet, 9 inches. The reduction in height is 24 feet or 19.4%. Additionally, the church has revised their lighting schedule such that fights will not come on prior to 6 a.m. and shall cease at 10A0 p.m. The exterior material, finish, color and lighting concept are not changing from the original project. The original Temple includes 1,089 square feet above 35 feet in height and the new proposal occupies 969 square feet above this height. Due to the reduced height, slight increase In width and lower area above 35 feet, the revised project presents no greater Impact to public views than the proposed project The City has reviewed the revised plans and rinds the proposed project to have an Impact on the environment similar to and /or less than the original submittal. Therefore, the findings in the DEIR apply to the revised project, and the EIR may be certified with change. Public comment was opened and a representative of the applicant was called to testify to the conditions language; Temple closing on Sundays, capacity of 175 people as a maximum, prohibition of holiday lighting on the building; and no lights after 10:00 p.m. Weatherford Clayton stated: • The Temple is closed on Sundays. He agrees to this condition. • • More than 150 -175 people cannot occupy the Temple at any one time. • There will be no holiday lights on the Temple building. At Commission inquiry, Dr. Clayton continued: • The safety lighting stays on and the official parking lot lights go off at 11:00 p.m. The Stake Center grounds have adequate parking, other than 2 days per year (in the months of March and September). Special accommodations for overflow parking on these 2 days will be in place while the Temple is under construction. The parking by the Temple site is chained off so it has not been used and will not be a problem during construction. Chairperson Kiser revised his motion to add; no holiday lighting on the Temple building itself and that geffing a Special Event Permit would not allow the holiday lighting on the Temple; and the finding that the Temple is closed on Sundays; a maximum number of occupancy of 175 for the structure. Ms. Wood suggested adding timing on the parking lights if the Commission agrees with that concern. Commissioner Tucker noted that there is no reason to keep the parking lights on after people have left. Following a brief discussion, it was decided that there are standards In the Zoning • Code regarding lighting and spillage that will be adequate to control the parking 17 City of Newport Beach • Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 INDEX lots lighting. Commissioner Agajanian asked that a straw vote be taken to reduce the steeple height to 90 feet. Chairperson Kiser polled the Commission: Commissioner Tucker - yes, if three other Commissioners agree. Commissioner Selich - no. Chairperson Kiser - no. Commissioner McDaniel - no. Commissioner Agajanian - yes. Commissioner Toerge - not willing to decide without more time to study plans. Chairperson Kiser called for vote on the motion: Ayes: Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Noes: Toerge Absent: Gifford ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business* a) City Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood introduced Gregg Ramirez, who has been promoted to Associate Planner and will be working on Planning Commission staff report preparation. Ms. Wood then noted that at the last Council meeting of September 24th they approved, on second reading, the Code Amendment for the Temporary Real Estate Signs, and the projects on Orange Street and Finley Avenue. Participation in a new housing program, with a Joint Powers Authority formed by cities in Orange County for a lease to own program was approved. The EZ Lube appeal was withdrawn. The Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment of Commissioner Toerge to both the General Plan Update Committee and the Local Coastal Program Committee. b) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that there was no meeting due to the delay in the Fiscal and Economic Study. C) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian noted that everything is moving along. d) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a • 18 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2002 0 subsequent meeting - none. f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - Commissioner Selich noted that the verbiage on the staff reports is done in a negative manner. The legal notices should be worded to reflect that the Planning Commission is.setting. height. limits, not that applicants are requesting to exceed the allowable height limit. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - none. h) Project status - Ms. Wood noted that the Housing Element draft has been resubmitted to HCD and it will be brought back for review by the Planning Commission. Requests for excused absences - none. ADJOURNMENT: 10:15 p.m. SHANT AGAJANIAN, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 19 INDEX Adjournment